Myers is not a beat reporter, he is an opinion writer. IMO he is the absolute worst one in NY media, even worse than Tank. Your source is crap - it's not a fact, just journalistic rumbling with no substantiation. That said, I do believe that Woody won't have Revis back, plus I believe Idzik won't pay that much for a CB even if the owner didn't mind. And I think they both right.
Makes sense.. So whom from the group B will you cut next year when Kerley and Snacks will be due for the payday? Remember that in you scenario you no longer have 20M because 16 of those are in Revis' pocket.
Based on your remarks above, I think you missed the entire point of my response to your post. If we had signed Revis for a one year deal at $12M (which is exactly what the Pats did) we would have your Group A and ALL OF GROUP your B. PERIOD. END OF STORY. No draft picks need to be traded. Our future isn't mortgaged to the hilt and we're not screwed for years to come if we don't win it all this year. We still have $10-12,000,000 in available CAP SPACE this year WITH REVIS ABOARD and no necessity of trading away any of our players or future draft picks.
Seattle just gave Sherman a deal worth 14M avg per year, with a hefty guaranteed portion. They had to, or he'd walk after this season, and it wasn't a player they were willing to lose. So they have in fact already signed him to this money, and are on the hook to pay him. As they were up against the cap, they had to backload a good deal of that, which i don't like much (mortgaging future). They will be paying him over 16M a year soon to balance this years lower cap hit as a result. So let me understand your worldview here. There are no super bowl contenders who pay a CB eight, nine, ten or more mil a year, and those teams who have done so will have destroyed their future? Is that correct? If so, I'm glad i'm not a Broncos, Patriots, Packers, Brows, Texans, Cowboys, Bengals, Colts, Titans, Ravens or Dolphins fan. According to you, they're toast. lol. And the poor Seahawks, they must have really screwed themselves in your eyes.
So it's ok to pay a top CB, but ONLY if you are a loaded in the last 1 to 2 years of being a legit contender? wow, i didn't realize there was such rules to improving your secondary. what do you think of the teams who are not in win now mode who are currently paying big money to CB's? The Seahawks just gave Sherman a boatload, and they are a young team not in win now mode. guess they made a huge mistake. The Giants gave DRC 7M per, possibly the most overpaid based on talent. They also gave Thurmond 3M just to play nickel. But no, they don't value the position.
I wouldn't cut anyone from Group B (unless there was obvious just cause). My premise is rooted on a reality based scenario and not some fantasy based hypothetical. Revis is costing the Pats $12,000,000 (REALITY) this year and not $16M (FANTASY or just plain WRONG). Remove the Patterson signing and we still have $10-12Million in CAP space this year. When next year rolls around (by which time some of our developing young CBs will hopefully be ready to step up) we cut REVIS loose if he is unwilling to structure a new deal that enables us to satisfy the pending new contracts we have upcoming in Group B. I understood the question to be, do you spend your money on group A or group B. I was simply pointing out how we could have easily taken on both groups without breaking the bank, or mortgaging our future and made an already GOOD defense MUCH BETTER....
Here is the real question: Would you rather: Option 1 Dimitri Patterson + 23M in available cap space for future investment + all of your group B, along with the rest of our signings and draft picks OR Option 2 Darrelle Revis + 14M in available cap space for future investment + all of your group B, along with the rest of our signings and draft picks - Revis on our divisional rival All emotional reactions to Revis aside, this is what it boils down to. I agree he is a greedy SOB, but he has no non-money related knocks, and is a perfect scheme fit. the possibility of option 2 was worth a phone call. that's all i'm saying.
Only way I see Woody and Idzik taking him back is if he takes a reduced salary. 8-9M per and of course a non-holdout clause in the contract.
Why would they want him at all if he is an old CB playing to an 8-9M level? Idzik doesn't want any old players at all it would seem.
It's not impossible to contend for a Super Bowl with a $10 million/yr cornerback ... it's just much, much harder because you have a bad contract on your salary cap. Due to the way the league puts dresses on its QB, it's possible for any team with a HOF QB to contend for a Super Bowl, almost regardless of the surrounding players. The first three teams have HOF QBs - there's a possibility they could make the Super Bowl, it's just not nearly as good a possibility as it would have been without the stupid contracts they gave out in their defensive backfield. And yes, I think that after this season, the Seahawks are screwed; they put themselves on a one season clock.
Woody is the owner. He doesn't make every decision to be sure. But he has made a few, like getting Tebow. More to the point I don't think major roster decisions have been made that are contrary to what Woody wants. In Idzik's first year with the Jets, he agreed to keep Rex at Woody's behest. He also did not even try to negotiate a new deal with Revis, and instead traded him to Tampa. Idzik had not been with the Jets before the beginning of last year. How would he have come to a decision to not even try and negotiate with his new team's best player? How naive does one have to be to think Woody was not involved in this decision? And same for not taking Revis's call this year. Anyway, the funny thing about this thread is that those who are all for the FO not even trying to deal with Revis are taking two different positions. One is that they did not deal with him because he's a me first cancer. The otehr is that it would not have made sense to sign him, given the roster and cap situation. These are not necessarily contradictory positions. One can believe both. But the analysis on the price spread being only $9mil if Revis had been signed and Patterson not picked up for $3mil, and that there was and is plenty of money available under the cap, the Jets could have signed Revis quite easily. Imo that undercuts the business logic of the approach taken.
I generally disagree with your position here, but there is a bit of logic at work here, and that concerns the perception of whether a team is likely to contend. If one thinks the coming season is primarily about seeing if Smith is going to work out as the Jets' medium term answer at Qb, then it would not have made sense to sign Revis to a one year deal. Yep. But of course I also think while Vick is probably not going to sniff the HOF, he's not far off from the talent level of the Qb's you refer to, and if he was the starter, and the Jets had Revis at Cb, and everyone stayed healthy, the Jets would imo be perhaps not a lock to make the playoffs, but would be likely to make them. This is in short just another reason why I think the FO thinks goal 1 this season is assessing Smith.
Did I say that, dumbass? Read what I wrote again. I did not say that. Don't try to spew out bullshit out of your ass if you have this magnitude of difficulty in reading comprehension. Ravens compensated Flacco's service with joke of a contract. They are in shit situation. Expect the same to happen with Seahawks soon. Blowing top dollars for CB position is a recipe for a disaster. Jets have consistently shown that. Their ineffectiveness was magnified as they didn't have the front seven that the Seahawks have now. And I don't give a flying fuck about what Giants do frankly. They SHOULD HAVE DRAFTED a fucking CB instead of blowing 7M on a marginal talent like DRC - but that's me. ---------------------------------------- Last but not the least, consider this. With the cap figure as it is now, you can assume you can spend up to 110M for the starters. This basically means every starter is getting 5M per year on average. So... tell me. If you blow 10+M on CB, who should get less? That's where the problem kicks in. CB position is just not worth blowing top dollar as it is with the front seven players, or QB for that matter.
seriously? cracking on revis while praising a true me first guy like Jason Taylor? a guy Revis helped carry to his only title game? don't confuse wanting to get paid w/ being a selfish player. His teammates loved him and he was a team leader on some damn good teams.
It really couldn't be any more clear: the front office has a specific direction for this team and Revis did not fit the direction. What IS the direction? Well if you need that explained to you then it's no wonder you have your panties in a bunch over not bringing back Revis. A rebuilding team does not spend the kind of money Revis was looking for on one player. That's why they traded him in the first place. Would he have helped the team? Of course he would have. He's one of the best CBs in the game. But we aren't competing this year. Not for a title at least. It makes no sense to tie up money AND playing time in a guy that won't be a part of your team when you are ready to compete (you have to assume he'll command the farm in two years). I much prefer developing youth to paying vets. At least to the extent we would have to pay Revis. It pays dividends down the road assuming it works out in your favor. If it doesn't, then you're in the exact same position as pretty much every other GM that took shots on players that didn't pan out. AKA, every GM in the league.
I don't think idzik had much to do with this. he was so much of a headache, that woody wanted nothing to do with him. sort of like selling a defective corvette that spends more time in the dealer's garage than yours.
